Pick your poison; dissapointment or depression?
The way I saw the Obama victory - well after the initial shock wore off- was that of a very strong potential to be beneficial to the conservative cause.
As I have mentioned in a post-election video, approaching from a very macro viewpoint there are two major possibilities.
1) Obama drops the change/hope mantra and due to his inexperience governs without governing. Most of his policies will simply fall on deaf ears and many of this proposals will never be implemented due to a slew of factors; economy, partisanship, change of mind, etc.
This will lead to massive disappointment and frustration among his loyal constituency and anger over the moderates who were looking for a change of pace.
2) Obama governs just like his campaign slogans and with the aid of the most liberal congress leadership in history implements social program galore. While these programs generally take time to decay and eat away at infrastructure and can often go unnoticed in times of prosperity, but with today's economy these failures will manifest themselves very quickly. 2008-2012 will be Jimmy Carter part Deux. People will face economic hardships of historic proportions and plagued with anything from gas shortage, food shortage, double digit unemployment, 75% losses in the stock market, etc will sorely regret their decision on November 4th as we plunge into the next Great Depression.
As of now, scenario one is unfolding as we speak. Virtually every single cabinet pick has been to some degree a Clintonista including Hillary herself! Change, change, change. Some of the policies that were advocated during the campaign are already being muted. News that Iraq withdrawal will only happen in 3 years and the Bush tax cuts will NOT be repealed is sending shock waves through the liberal community. There will certainly be elements of scenario #2, but not nearly to such an extent as was once feared during the campaign. It's possible that Obama used his radical ties as a spring board to achieve power and just like he ditched Jeremiah Wright, will ditch his entire left wing support.
As evidence of this, check out the blurb from the story at Salon.
"This has been the pattern for him historically -- the left falls in love with him because of his eloquent oratory and his, I think, genuine sense of mission to help people who are less fortunate," said biographer David Mendell. "But he has legislated from somewhere in the middle, and then once he gets into a general election campaign, he tends to squirt that direction even farther. He'll irritate people on both sides -- except the right expects him to be a Democrat, and the far left expects him to be one of them. And he's consistently disappointed the far left."
So apparently, he had a track record already, but because Election 2008 was a popularity contest no one seemed to care. And then this....
"You could have had an administration with a sprinkling of Clinton people, it would have been fine," said Robert Kuttner, co-editor of the American Prospect and a distinguished senior fellow at Demos, a liberal think tank (and a longtime critic of Bill Clinton's centrist economic policies). "But when so many of the top people are holdovers, and he's promoting change, you have to say, wait a minute."
Lastly, today's high lite article!
"With top Democrats talking about a package in the hundreds of billions of dollars, a top aide to Obama hinted the campaign promise to repeal the [Bush]tax cuts for the wealthy might be delayed."
You just have to love the wording! You can feel just how angry they are over this, such that the Bush tax cuts are suddenly the 'tax cuts for the wealthy'. Never mind the fact that his tax cuts effect people in the 22-25% bracket, which are those families making 50,000 and above.
It's OK Obama supporters, you are sacrificing your hope for the good of this nation and never underestimate how fun it will be for us to watch liberals squirm.
As I have mentioned in a post-election video, approaching from a very macro viewpoint there are two major possibilities.
1) Obama drops the change/hope mantra and due to his inexperience governs without governing. Most of his policies will simply fall on deaf ears and many of this proposals will never be implemented due to a slew of factors; economy, partisanship, change of mind, etc.
This will lead to massive disappointment and frustration among his loyal constituency and anger over the moderates who were looking for a change of pace.
2) Obama governs just like his campaign slogans and with the aid of the most liberal congress leadership in history implements social program galore. While these programs generally take time to decay and eat away at infrastructure and can often go unnoticed in times of prosperity, but with today's economy these failures will manifest themselves very quickly. 2008-2012 will be Jimmy Carter part Deux. People will face economic hardships of historic proportions and plagued with anything from gas shortage, food shortage, double digit unemployment, 75% losses in the stock market, etc will sorely regret their decision on November 4th as we plunge into the next Great Depression.
As of now, scenario one is unfolding as we speak. Virtually every single cabinet pick has been to some degree a Clintonista including Hillary herself! Change, change, change. Some of the policies that were advocated during the campaign are already being muted. News that Iraq withdrawal will only happen in 3 years and the Bush tax cuts will NOT be repealed is sending shock waves through the liberal community. There will certainly be elements of scenario #2, but not nearly to such an extent as was once feared during the campaign. It's possible that Obama used his radical ties as a spring board to achieve power and just like he ditched Jeremiah Wright, will ditch his entire left wing support.
As evidence of this, check out the blurb from the story at Salon.
"This has been the pattern for him historically -- the left falls in love with him because of his eloquent oratory and his, I think, genuine sense of mission to help people who are less fortunate," said biographer David Mendell. "But he has legislated from somewhere in the middle, and then once he gets into a general election campaign, he tends to squirt that direction even farther. He'll irritate people on both sides -- except the right expects him to be a Democrat, and the far left expects him to be one of them. And he's consistently disappointed the far left."
So apparently, he had a track record already, but because Election 2008 was a popularity contest no one seemed to care. And then this....
"You could have had an administration with a sprinkling of Clinton people, it would have been fine," said Robert Kuttner, co-editor of the American Prospect and a distinguished senior fellow at Demos, a liberal think tank (and a longtime critic of Bill Clinton's centrist economic policies). "But when so many of the top people are holdovers, and he's promoting change, you have to say, wait a minute."
Lastly, today's high lite article!
"With top Democrats talking about a package in the hundreds of billions of dollars, a top aide to Obama hinted the campaign promise to repeal the [Bush]tax cuts for the wealthy might be delayed."
You just have to love the wording! You can feel just how angry they are over this, such that the Bush tax cuts are suddenly the 'tax cuts for the wealthy'. Never mind the fact that his tax cuts effect people in the 22-25% bracket, which are those families making 50,000 and above.
It's OK Obama supporters, you are sacrificing your hope for the good of this nation and never underestimate how fun it will be for us to watch liberals squirm.
Comments
Post a Comment